(March 2, 2017 at 9:53 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 9:40 pm)pool the matey Wrote: First of all, I wouldn't classify it as "forcing" at all. If a mother is incapable of carrying the child and the father is alive and well then it would be his duty to do it because the child is his too. So yeah, provided that kind of technology exists it would make sense for a father to do it.

If the father has a duty to do something, and they say "Fuck you I'm not putting that thing in my tummy", is that the end of the discussion?  Give up on the baby and let the man go about his business like he was before?

They'll have to modify the marriage contract to include a man giving consent to carry a baby if it comes to it. Sex resulting in pregnancy should have to automatically assume the man giving consent to carry the baby if it comes to it. But let's not kid ourselves this is a hypothetical scenario which will most likely never come to fruition.

(March 2, 2017 at 11:33 pm)pool the matey Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 9:53 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: If the father has a duty to do something, and they say "Fuck you I'm not putting that thing in my tummy", is that the end of the discussion?  Give up on the baby and let the man go about his business like he was before?

They'll have to modify the marriage contract to include a man giving consent to carry a baby if it comes to it. Sex resulting in pregnancy should have to automatically assume the man giving consent to carry the baby if it comes to it. But let's not kid ourselves this is a hypothetical scenario which will most likely never come to fruition.

I feel like you didn't really answer my question.
In the context of the hypothetical:
Are you suggesting that sex with a woman be a legally binding contract that the man accepts to house the baby if the woman is incapable?
So again, what happens if the man has sex with the woman, she gets pregnant, and it turns out she is incapable of housing the fetus for medical reasons.  The man then says "fuck off, I'm not doing that".
What are you going to do?

Specifically what do you want the law to say about a man that gets a woman pregnant and then refuses to house the fetus when the woman is unable to.

Maybe confer the equivalent of a 'Common law marriage' on any sex act that results in a viable birth.

Of course, bigamy laws would apply where appropriate.

[crosses arms and looks at former Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sternly]

(March 3, 2017 at 11:38 am)Aristocatt Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 11:33 pm)pool the matey Wrote: They'll have to modify the marriage contract to include a man giving consent to carry a baby if it comes to it. Sex resulting in pregnancy should have to automatically assume the man giving consent to carry the baby if it comes to it. But let's not kid ourselves this is a hypothetical scenario which will most likely never come to fruition.

I feel like you didn't really answer my question.
In the context of the hypothetical:
Are you suggesting that sex with a woman be a legally binding contract that the man accepts to house the baby if the woman is incapable?
So again, what happens if the man has sex with the woman, she gets pregnant, and it turns out she is incapable of housing the fetus for medical reasons.  The man then says "fuck off, I'm not doing that".
What are you going to do?

Specifically what do you want the law to say about a man that gets a woman pregnant and then refuses to house the fetus when the woman is unable to.

A woman could do the same thing. Tell them to fuck off when they say she cannot abort and use some other sick method to kill the fetus. It's not practical to restrain the kind of people to bed and force them. Only way would be to give them appropriate punishment. Now if you're going to ask me "what punishment?" then I don't know. Whatever punishment they deserve.

Hmmm, Aristo, you are wasting your time. Above this lies simple unbridled stupidity. Why? He wats to punish but not give the amount of punishment.

And the word "punishment" is a tell tale sign.